--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2009-06-05 00:32, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > So if is not 'too late', YES IT CAN, isn't it?
>
> OK, explain the origin of the type of ablaut that you see in what you
> reconstruct as *monh2-.
>
> Piotr
Hello Piotr,
I know that you have stopped this thread (again it was a misunderstanding, Sorry)
But, I cannot end this thread, without to answer to your main point (above)
This is my answer for you:
- an 'Update' for the Co-Existence of the CREH-/CREH- roots in PIE
- and against a false invocation of the 'Rejection of Schwebeablaut Theory'
(doesn't matter, if the name, is 'Laryngeal Metathesis' or whatever else....) :
Bibliography:
-------------
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mox4cw6zY6kC&pg=PA375&dq=laryngeal+metathesis+winter#PPA366,M1
You will find a LOT of Verbal/Nouns/Adjective Examples of
ROOT-TYPE-A CREH-
ROOT-TYPE-B CERH-
I hope that after SO MANY EXAMPLES QUPOTED IN THE LINK ABOVE
you will arrive to the same Conclusion as mine:
============================================================
That monh2-'eye is clearly a Possible derivation of menh2-/mneh2-
and the Schrijver's Model is quite Ok, at least in relation with mo/ma
(I still have some doubts regarding wo/wa,
but even their he has only 1-2 issues)
=============================================================
===================================================================
Also that g^noh1- derived forms are clearly OK, and there is no need to strangulate their obvious 'genitor' semantism
===================================================================
Marius